Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.817

onset_age

250

36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)

0.730

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.430, 0.174

0.407

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.029

0.137

-0.297, 0.239

0.831

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.293

0.198

-0.094, 0.681

0.139

Pseudo R square

0.006

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.381

-0.826, 0.666

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.236

0.257

-0.739, 0.267

0.359

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.04

0.372

0.307, 1.77

0.006

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.504

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.712

-1.06, 1.73

0.638

time_point

1st

2nd

0.689

0.411

-0.116, 1.49

0.095

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.19

0.597

0.021, 2.36

0.047

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.185

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.261

-0.479, 0.543

0.902

time_point

1st

2nd

0.021

0.180

-0.332, 0.374

0.908

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.316

0.261

-0.195, 0.828

0.227

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.291

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.412

-0.463, 1.15

0.404

time_point

1st

2nd

0.411

0.263

-0.104, 0.926

0.120

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.393

0.381

-0.355, 1.14

0.305

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.545, 0.913

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.363

0.215

-0.059, 0.784

0.093

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.276

0.312

-0.337, 0.888

0.379

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.215

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.304

-0.987, 0.203

0.198

time_point

1st

2nd

0.066

0.216

-0.358, 0.490

0.761

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.767

0.314

0.152, 1.38

0.015

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.876

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.239

-3.72, 1.14

0.300

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.52

0.681

-2.85, -0.186

0.027

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.122

0.989

-1.82, 2.06

0.902

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.408

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.577

-1.14, 1.12

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.380

0.353

-0.312, 1.07

0.283

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.274

0.513

-0.731, 1.28

0.594

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.515

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.729

-0.588, 2.27

0.250

time_point

1st

2nd

0.349

0.439

-0.510, 1.21

0.427

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.276

0.637

-0.972, 1.52

0.665

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.643

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.909

-0.414, 3.15

0.133

time_point

1st

2nd

1.20

0.501

0.222, 2.19

0.017

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.110

0.728

-1.54, 1.32

0.880

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.335

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.474

-0.576, 1.28

0.458

time_point

1st

2nd

0.345

0.267

-0.178, 0.868

0.198

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.002

0.388

-0.758, 0.761

0.997

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.542

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.767

-1.50, 1.50

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.817

0.443

-0.052, 1.69

0.067

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.220

0.644

-1.04, 1.48

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.627

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.887

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

1.06

0.488

0.101, 2.01

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.162

0.709

-1.55, 1.23

0.819

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.390

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.551

-0.321, 1.84

0.169

time_point

1st

2nd

0.732

0.353

0.040, 1.42

0.039

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.522

0.512

-0.482, 1.53

0.309

Pseudo R square

0.025

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.354

0.050, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.117

0.217

-0.542, 0.307

0.588

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.467

0.315

-0.149, 1.08

0.139

Pseudo R square

0.029

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.285

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.403

-0.398, 1.18

0.332

time_point

1st

2nd

0.368

0.239

-0.099, 0.836

0.124

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.325

0.347

-0.355, 1.00

0.350

Pseudo R square

0.014

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.416

-0.120, 1.51

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.293

0.231

-0.159, 0.745

0.205

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.257

0.335

-0.400, 0.913

0.444

Pseudo R square

0.019

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.539

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.762

-0.406, 2.58

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.675

0.403

-0.115, 1.47

0.096

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.569

0.586

-0.579, 1.72

0.333

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.818

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.156

-3.48, 1.05

0.294

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.805

0.642

-2.06, 0.452

0.211

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.53

0.932

-3.36, 0.293

0.101

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.447

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.633

-0.232, 2.25

0.112

time_point

1st

2nd

0.408

0.346

-0.271, 1.09

0.241

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.500

0.503

-0.486, 1.49

0.322

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.363

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.514

0.001, 2.01

0.051

time_point

1st

2nd

0.560

0.309

-0.046, 1.17

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.340

0.449

-0.540, 1.22

0.450

Pseudo R square

0.027

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.772

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.091

-0.123, 4.15

0.066

time_point

1st

2nd

0.966

0.600

-0.210, 2.14

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.836

0.872

-0.872, 2.55

0.339

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.140

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.198

-0.461, 0.317

0.717

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.222

0.166

-0.548, 0.104

0.184

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.320

0.241

-0.151, 0.791

0.185

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.310

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.439

-0.140, 1.58

0.102

time_point

1st

2nd

0.636

0.323

0.003, 1.27

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.669

0.468

-1.59, 0.248

0.154

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.377

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.533

-0.581, 1.51

0.385

time_point

1st

2nd

0.640

0.345

-0.037, 1.32

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.309

0.501

-0.672, 1.29

0.538

Pseudo R square

0.013

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.618

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.874

-0.529, 2.90

0.177

time_point

1st

2nd

1.29

0.582

0.144, 2.43

0.028

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.378

0.844

-2.03, 1.28

0.655

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.402

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.569

-0.587, 1.64

0.354

time_point

1st

2nd

0.757

0.338

0.095, 1.42

0.026

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.052

0.490

-0.909, 1.01

0.916

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.224

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.316

-0.628, 0.612

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.208

0.244

-0.270, 0.687

0.395

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.531

0.354

-0.162, 1.22

0.134

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.276

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.390

-0.852, 0.676

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.481

0.283

-1.03, 0.073

0.091

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.485

0.410

-1.29, 0.318

0.238

Pseudo R square

0.016

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.459

-0.676, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.396

0.266

-0.917, 0.125

0.138

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.675

0.386

-1.43, 0.081

0.082

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.332

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.470

-1.00, 0.841

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.539

0.272

-1.07, -0.007

0.049

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.252

0.395

-1.03, 0.522

0.524

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.333

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.471

-0.516, 1.33

0.387

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.361

0.268

-0.885, 0.163

0.179

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.660

0.389

-1.42, 0.102

0.091

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.934

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.321

-2.04, 3.14

0.676

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.30

0.686

-2.64, 0.048

0.060

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.53

0.997

-3.48, 0.429

0.128

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(428) = 29.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(428) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.24], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.68], t(428) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(428) = 66.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.27], t(428) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.31, 1.77], t(428) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(428) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(428) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.49], t(428) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.02, 2.36], t(428) = 2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [3.78e-03, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(428) = 63.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.37], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.908; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.83], t(428) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(428) = 59.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(428) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.93], t(428) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.14], t(428) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(428) = 49.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78], t(428) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.89], t(428) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(428) = 46.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(428) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49], t(428) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.15, 1.38], t(428) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.06, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(428) = 35.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(428) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.85, -0.19], t(428) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.82, 2.06], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(428) = 54.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(428) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.07], t(428) = 1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.28], t(428) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(428) = 47.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(428) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.21], t(428) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.52], t(428) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(428) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.22, 2.19], t(428) = 2.40, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.32], t(428) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(428) = 31.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(428) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.87], t(428) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.76], t(428) = 3.94e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 4.10e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.07, 16.19], t(428) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.31e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(428) = -3.01e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.35e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.69], t(428) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-8.77e-03, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.48], t(428) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(428) = 34.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(428) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.10, 2.01], t(428) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.23], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(428) = 41.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(428) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.04, 1.42], t(428) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [9.13e-03, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.53], t(428) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(428) = 52.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(428) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.31], t(428) = -0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.08], t(428) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(428) = 58.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.84], t(428) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.00], t(428) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(428) = 42.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.74], t(428) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.91], t(428) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(428) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(428) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.47], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.72], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(428) = 34.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(428) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.45], t(428) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.36, 0.29], t(428) = -1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(428) = 30.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(428) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.09], t(428) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.49], t(428) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(428) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [1.14e-03, 2.01], t(428) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.78e-04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.17], t(428) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.22], t(428) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(428) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.14], t(428) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.55], t(428) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(428) = 91.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(428) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10], t(428) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.79], t(428) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(428) = 46.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(428) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [3.13e-03, 1.27], t(428) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [8.99e-04, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.25], t(428) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(428) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.32], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-8.64e-03, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.29], t(428) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(428) = 44.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(428) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [0.14, 2.43], t(428) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.28], t(428) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(428) = 46.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.64], t(428) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.10, 1.42], t(428) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.01], t(428) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(428) = 64.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(428) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.69], t(428) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.22], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(428) = 42.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.07], t(428) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.32], t(428) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(428) = 32.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.12], t(428) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.08], t(428) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(428) = 30.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(428) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.07, -6.51e-03], t(428) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, -1.75e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.52], t(428) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(428) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.16], t(428) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.10], t(428) = -1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(428) = 31.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(428) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.05], t(428) = -1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 4.57e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.48, 0.43], t(428) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,386.655

1,398.874

-690.327

1,380.655

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,389.172

1,413.610

-688.586

1,377.172

3.483

3

0.323

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,106.383

2,118.602

-1,050.192

2,100.383

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,102.141

2,126.579

-1,045.070

2,090.141

10.242

3

0.017

ras_confidence

null

3

2,613.397

2,625.616

-1,303.699

2,607.397

ras_confidence

random

6

2,597.478

2,621.916

-1,292.739

2,585.478

21.920

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,778.469

1,790.689

-886.235

1,772.469

ras_willingness

random

6

1,780.885

1,805.323

-884.442

1,768.885

3.585

3

0.310

ras_goal

null

3

2,159.533

2,171.752

-1,076.767

2,153.533

ras_goal

random

6

2,153.339

2,177.777

-1,070.669

2,141.339

12.195

3

0.007

ras_reliance

null

3

2,039.680

2,051.899

-1,016.840

2,033.680

ras_reliance

random

6

2,034.514

2,058.952

-1,011.257

2,022.514

11.166

3

0.011

ras_domination

null

3

1,929.670

1,941.889

-961.835

1,923.670

ras_domination

random

6

1,922.180

1,946.619

-955.090

1,910.180

13.489

3

0.004

symptom

null

3

3,066.013

3,078.232

-1,530.007

3,060.013

symptom

random

6

3,062.310

3,086.748

-1,525.155

3,050.310

9.703

3

0.021

slof_work

null

3

2,431.902

2,444.122

-1,212.951

2,425.902

slof_work

random

6

2,433.621

2,458.059

-1,210.810

2,421.621

4.282

3

0.233

slof_relationship

null

3

2,628.751

2,640.971

-1,311.376

2,622.751

slof_relationship

random

6

2,630.448

2,654.886

-1,309.224

2,618.448

4.303

3

0.231

satisfaction

null

3

2,800.379

2,812.599

-1,397.190

2,794.379

satisfaction

random

6

2,794.367

2,818.806

-1,391.184

2,782.367

12.012

3

0.007

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,233.038

2,245.257

-1,113.519

2,227.038

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,235.297

2,259.735

-1,111.649

2,223.297

3.741

3

0.291

mhc_social

null

3

2,664.285

2,676.504

-1,329.142

2,658.285

mhc_social

random

6

2,662.127

2,686.565

-1,325.063

2,650.127

8.158

3

0.043

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,774.107

2,786.326

-1,384.053

2,768.107

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,772.449

2,796.887

-1,380.224

2,760.449

7.658

3

0.054

resilisnce

null

3

2,420.330

2,432.549

-1,207.165

2,414.330

resilisnce

random

6

2,407.818

2,432.256

-1,197.909

2,395.818

18.512

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

2,013.640

2,025.859

-1,003.820

2,007.640

social_provision

random

6

2,009.445

2,033.884

-998.723

1,997.445

10.195

3

0.017

els_value_living

null

3

2,116.960

2,129.179

-1,055.480

2,110.960

els_value_living

random

6

2,111.446

2,135.884

-1,049.723

2,099.446

11.514

3

0.009

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,122.457

2,134.676

-1,058.228

2,116.457

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,117.945

2,142.384

-1,052.973

2,105.945

10.511

3

0.015

els

null

3

2,636.032

2,648.251

-1,315.016

2,630.032

els

random

6

2,627.888

2,652.326

-1,307.944

2,615.888

14.145

3

0.003

social_connect

null

3

3,015.160

3,027.379

-1,504.580

3,009.160

social_connect

random

6

3,005.366

3,029.805

-1,496.683

2,993.366

15.793

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

2,482.431

2,494.650

-1,238.216

2,476.431

shs_agency

random

6

2,477.196

2,501.635

-1,232.598

2,465.196

11.235

3

0.011

shs_pathway

null

3

2,337.296

2,349.515

-1,165.648

2,331.296

shs_pathway

random

6

2,327.318

2,351.757

-1,157.659

2,315.318

15.978

3

0.001

shs

null

3

2,961.346

2,973.565

-1,477.673

2,955.346

shs

random

6

2,952.046

2,976.484

-1,470.023

2,940.046

15.301

3

0.002

esteem

null

3

1,591.140

1,603.359

-792.570

1,585.140

esteem

random

6

1,594.916

1,619.355

-791.458

1,582.916

2.223

3

0.527

mlq_search

null

3

2,250.192

2,262.411

-1,122.096

2,244.192

mlq_search

random

6

2,251.043

2,275.482

-1,119.522

2,239.043

5.149

3

0.161

mlq_presence

null

3

2,387.537

2,399.756

-1,190.768

2,381.537

mlq_presence

random

6

2,382.249

2,406.687

-1,185.124

2,370.249

11.288

3

0.010

mlq

null

3

2,822.287

2,834.506

-1,408.144

2,816.287

mlq

random

6

2,819.775

2,844.213

-1,403.887

2,807.775

8.513

3

0.037

empower

null

3

2,416.382

2,428.601

-1,205.191

2,410.382

empower

random

6

2,411.409

2,435.847

-1,199.704

2,399.409

10.973

3

0.012

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,982.771

1,994.990

-988.385

1,976.771

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,979.359

2,003.797

-983.680

1,967.359

9.412

3

0.024

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,151.772

2,163.991

-1,072.886

2,145.772

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,144.048

2,168.486

-1,066.024

2,132.048

13.724

3

0.003

sss_affective

null

3

2,227.965

2,240.185

-1,110.983

2,221.965

sss_affective

random

6

2,217.455

2,241.893

-1,102.728

2,205.455

16.510

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,242.754

2,254.973

-1,118.377

2,236.754

sss_behavior

random

6

2,237.181

2,261.620

-1,112.591

2,225.181

11.573

3

0.009

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,242.646

2,254.865

-1,118.323

2,236.646

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,233.795

2,258.234

-1,110.898

2,221.795

14.850

3

0.002

sss

null

3

3,111.139

3,123.358

-1,552.569

3,105.139

sss

random

6

3,098.817

3,123.256

-1,543.409

3,086.817

18.321

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.407

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

97

3.17 ± 1.20

0.030

87

3.34 ± 1.20

-0.267

0.353

-0.167

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.044

recovery_stage_b

2nd

97

17.64 ± 2.87

0.129

87

18.60 ± 2.83

-0.439

0.024

-0.524

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.63

125

30.02 ± 5.63

0.638

-0.116

ras_confidence

2nd

97

30.38 ± 5.28

-0.237

87

31.90 ± 5.16

-0.647

0.048

-0.526

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.06

125

11.66 ± 2.06

0.902

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

97

11.64 ± 1.97

-0.016

87

11.99 ± 1.95

-0.263

0.230

-0.272

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.25

125

17.53 ± 3.25

0.404

-0.184

ras_goal

2nd

97

17.59 ± 3.09

-0.220

87

18.33 ± 3.03

-0.431

0.104

-0.395

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.121

ras_reliance

2nd

97

13.51 ± 2.76

-0.238

87

13.97 ± 2.70

-0.420

0.255

-0.302

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.198

0.254

ras_domination

2nd

97

10.02 ± 2.31

-0.043

87

10.39 ± 2.28

-0.540

0.268

-0.243

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.80

125

30.21 ± 9.80

0.300

0.268

symptom

2nd

97

29.98 ± 9.15

0.316

87

28.81 ± 8.92

0.291

0.382

0.243

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.56

125

22.06 ± 4.56

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

97

22.44 ± 4.31

-0.152

87

22.71 ± 4.22

-0.261

0.673

-0.106

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.76

125

25.34 ± 5.76

0.250

-0.271

slof_relationship

2nd

97

24.85 ± 5.43

-0.112

87

25.97 ± 5.31

-0.201

0.160

-0.359

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.19

125

21.03 ± 7.19

0.133

-0.387

satisfaction

2nd

97

20.87 ± 6.71

-0.340

87

22.13 ± 6.54

-0.309

0.199

-0.355

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.74

125

11.00 ± 3.74

0.458

-0.187

mhc_emotional

2nd

97

10.99 ± 3.50

-0.183

87

11.35 ± 3.42

-0.184

0.489

-0.188

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.06

125

15.13 ± 6.06

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

97

15.94 ± 5.69

-0.261

87

16.16 ± 5.56

-0.331

0.791

-0.070

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.01

125

21.87 ± 7.01

0.719

-0.093

mhc_psychological

2nd

97

22.61 ± 6.55

-0.307

87

22.77 ± 6.38

-0.260

0.869

-0.046

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.36

125

16.94 ± 4.36

0.169

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

97

16.91 ± 4.14

-0.292

87

18.19 ± 4.06

-0.501

0.035

-0.512

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.80

125

13.91 ± 2.80

0.036

-0.485

social_provision

2nd

97

13.05 ± 2.64

0.077

87

14.26 ± 2.59

-0.228

0.002

-0.789

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.331

-0.232

els_value_living

2nd

97

17.13 ± 3.00

-0.218

87

17.85 ± 2.93

-0.410

0.102

-0.424

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.29

125

13.10 ± 3.29

0.096

-0.427

els_life_fulfill

2nd

97

12.70 ± 3.07

-0.180

87

13.65 ± 3.00

-0.338

0.034

-0.585

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.03

125

30.26 ± 6.03

0.155

-0.383

els

2nd

97

29.84 ± 5.61

-0.237

87

31.50 ± 5.46

-0.438

0.043

-0.583

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.14

125

26.66 ± 9.14

0.294

0.268

social_connect

2nd

97

27.07 ± 8.54

0.178

87

24.32 ± 8.33

0.516

0.028

0.607

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 5.00

125

14.85 ± 5.00

0.112

-0.413

shs_agency

2nd

97

14.25 ± 4.67

-0.167

87

15.76 ± 4.55

-0.371

0.027

-0.617

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.06

125

16.34 ± 4.06

0.051

-0.460

shs_pathway

2nd

97

15.89 ± 3.83

-0.256

87

17.24 ± 3.75

-0.411

0.016

-0.615

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.63

125

31.18 ± 8.63

0.066

-0.476

shs

2nd

97

30.13 ± 8.05

-0.228

87

32.99 ± 7.85

-0.426

0.016

-0.673

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.57

125

12.73 ± 1.57

0.717

0.060

esteem

2nd

97

12.58 ± 1.54

0.185

87

12.83 ± 1.53

-0.082

0.274

-0.207

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.47

125

15.08 ± 3.47

0.102

-0.312

mlq_search

2nd

97

15.00 ± 3.35

-0.276

87

15.05 ± 3.31

0.014

0.918

-0.022

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.22

125

13.62 ± 4.22

0.385

-0.189

mlq_presence

2nd

97

13.79 ± 4.01

-0.261

87

14.56 ± 3.94

-0.387

0.188

-0.316

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.91

125

28.70 ± 6.91

0.177

-0.286

mlq

2nd

97

28.80 ± 6.59

-0.311

87

29.60 ± 6.48

-0.219

0.404

-0.195

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.50

125

19.38 ± 4.50

0.354

-0.221

empower

2nd

97

19.61 ± 4.23

-0.317

87

20.19 ± 4.14

-0.339

0.349

-0.243

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.50

125

14.35 ± 2.50

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

97

14.57 ± 2.43

-0.119

87

15.09 ± 2.41

-0.423

0.143

-0.299

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.08

125

11.70 ± 3.08

0.822

0.044

ismi_discrimation

2nd

97

11.31 ± 2.97

0.238

87

10.74 ± 2.94

0.479

0.190

0.284

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.119

sss_affective

2nd

97

10.00 ± 3.41

0.211

87

9.55 ± 3.33

0.570

0.365

0.240

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.042

sss_behavior

2nd

97

9.64 ± 3.49

0.281

87

9.31 ± 3.41

0.412

0.514

0.173

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.73

125

9.12 ± 3.73

0.387

-0.216

sss_cognitive

2nd

97

8.35 ± 3.49

0.191

87

8.10 ± 3.41

0.540

0.621

0.133

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.44

125

29.84 ± 10.44

0.676

-0.114

sss

2nd

97

27.99 ± 9.69

0.268

87

27.02 ± 9.43

0.584

0.491

0.201

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(392.03) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(422.24) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.51)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(325.78) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(388.80) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.78)

ras_confidence

1st

t(302.41) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(363.51) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.04)

ras_willingness

1st

t(330.12) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)

2st

t(392.42) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.92)

ras_goal

1st

t(316.69) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)

2st

t(380.21) = 1.63, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.62)

ras_reliance

1st

t(302.71) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(363.92) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.25)

ras_domination

1st

t(336.49) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(397.25) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.04)

symptom

1st

t(296.74) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(355.62) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.45)

slof_work

1st

t(310.35) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)

2st

t(373.32) = 0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.50)

slof_relationship

1st

t(307.97) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(370.53) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.67)

satisfaction

1st

t(297.13) = 1.50, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(356.18) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.18)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(299.60) = 0.74, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(359.70) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)

mhc_social

1st

t(302.74) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(363.95) = 0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.85)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(296.87) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(355.80) = 0.17, p = 0.869, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.03)

resilisnce

1st

t(317.10) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(380.62) = 2.12, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.47)

social_provision

1st

t(310.28) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(373.24) = 3.14, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.97)

els_value_living

1st

t(305.82) = 0.97, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(367.89) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(297.64) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(356.92) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.83)

els

1st

t(292.73) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(349.54) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.26)

social_connect

1st

t(297.84) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(357.20) = -2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-5.20 to -0.30)

shs_agency

1st

t(296.30) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)

2st

t(354.97) = 2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.84)

shs_pathway

1st

t(308.04) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)

2st

t(370.61) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.45)

shs

1st

t(296.84) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)

2st

t(355.76) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.54 to 5.16)

esteem

1st

t(376.09) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(417.40) = 1.09, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st

t(343.42) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(401.89) = 0.10, p = 0.918, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.02)

mlq_presence

1st

t(318.81) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(382.34) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.93)

mlq

1st

t(323.71) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.90)

2st

t(386.96) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.70)

empower

1st

t(306.05) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)

2st

t(368.18) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.79)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(354.54) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(408.23) = 1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.23)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(340.08) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(399.73) = -1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.28)

sss_affective

1st

t(302.78) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(364.00) = -0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.53)

sss_behavior

1st

t(302.69) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)

2st

t(363.88) = -0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.67)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(300.48) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(360.91) = -0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.75)

sss

1st

t(290.97) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(346.73) = -0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.75 to 1.80)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(222.82) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.55)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(204.26) = 2.97, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(197.91) = 4.34, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (1.03 to 2.73)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(205.43) = 1.78, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.71)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(201.81) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.35)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(198.00) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.09)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(207.14) = 3.66, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.28)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(196.35) = -1.95, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.81 to 0.02)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(200.09) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.39)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(199.44) = 1.35, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.54)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(196.45) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(197.14) = 1.23, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(198.01) = 2.22, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.96)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(196.38) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.91)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(201.92) = 3.38, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(200.07) = 1.53, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(198.85) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(196.60) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(195.23) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.08)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(196.65) = -3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.67 to -1.00)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(196.22) = 2.49, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.63)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(199.46) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(196.37) = 2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(218.03) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(209.00) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.64)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(202.38) = 2.61, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(203.70) = 1.48, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.11)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(198.91) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(212.01) = 2.89, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(208.10) = -3.25, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.38)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(198.02) = -3.83, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(197.99) = -2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.36 to -0.23)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(197.38) = -3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.46)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(194.73) = -3.90, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.25 to -1.39)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(211.23) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.24)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(197.84) = -0.92, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.27)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(193.31) = 1.68, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.50)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(198.67) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(196.09) = 1.56, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(193.37) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.79)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(199.90) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.49)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(192.20) = -2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.86 to -0.18)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(194.86) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.08)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(194.40) = 0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.21)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(192.28) = 2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.19)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(192.76) = 1.29, p = 0.396, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.87)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(193.38) = 1.84, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.69)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(192.23) = 2.17, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.02)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(196.17) = 2.07, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.43)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(194.85) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(193.98) = 1.54, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.84)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(192.38) = 1.27, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.75)

els

1st vs 2st

t(191.41) = 1.67, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.47)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(192.42) = -1.25, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.46)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(192.11) = 1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.09)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(194.41) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(192.22) = 1.61, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.15)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(207.74) = -1.33, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.11)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(201.23) = 1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.27)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(196.50) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.32)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(197.44) = 2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.43)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(194.03) = 2.24, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.42)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(203.39) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(200.59) = -1.70, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.08)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(193.39) = -1.49, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.13)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(193.37) = -1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.08 to -0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(192.94) = -1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.17)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(191.05) = -1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.06)

Plot

Clinical significance